Editor Charles H. Smith's Note: Wallace's 1870
wager to prove the earth a sphere drew a lot of
press attention, especially when the loser, a flat-earther named Hampden,
continued to libel and
otherwise harass him and his family for several years afterward. A
transcript ofthe court
proceedings following one of these episodes, including Wallace's
testimony, is
given below.
Printed on page 7 of the 12 March 1875 issue of The Chelmsford Chronicle.
To link directly to
this page, connect with: http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S248A.htm

On the adjournment of the Purfleet murder case, at five o'clock in the evening, a fresh jury was sworn to try the case of libel which had been deferred, at the request of the accused, John Hampden, on Thursday last, so that he might have time to prepare a written plea of justification.

Mr. Woollett was counsel for the prosecutor,
Mr. Alfred Russell Wallace, a gentleman well-
known in the scientific world, who lives at the Dell, Grays Thurrock,
in this county, and the
prisoner Mr. Hampden, who had no counsel, surrendered immediately his
name was called and
handed in to the Clerk of Arraigns a written document.

This document the clerk commenced to read. It opened by a plea of not
guilty to each of the
six distinct libels upon which the indictment was founded, and continued
in the following
strain:--"The defendant, John Hampden, instead of knowing
the said charges to be false and
malicious, declares them in a general sense to be substantially bona
fide and true, and inasmuch
as the said Alfred Russell Wallace is the professed champion and exponent
of a popular system
which the said John Hampden knows to be deceiving and defrauding large
numbers of the
educated classes, the said John Hampden feels justified in denouncing
and exposing all attempts
to prove such theories, by an appeal to actual facts." The clerk,
seeing that the document was
informal, ceased reading with the remark that it went on to charge Mr.
Wallace with obtaining
money by false pretences.

His Lordship: If you wish to justify the libel, your plea must be that it is true and that it is for
the public benefit that it is published.

Mr. Woollett: We will raise no technical difficulties. We will simply
join issue on everything
he says. [Laughter.] Mr. Wallace is ready to meet any charge whatever.

His Lordship said it had better be considered, then, that Mr. Hampden
pleaded that the libels
were true and published for the public benefit.

Mr. Hampden: That is what I wish to plead, my lord.

The Clerk of Arraigns reminded Mr. Hampden that he had written that Mr.
Wallace was a
swindler, a liar, a thief, and a cheat.

Mr. Hampden said he maintained
that this was true in a general sense of a man who had
taken £500 under false pretences.

His Lordship: Do you mean to assert that it is true that this gentleman
is a swindler, a liar,
and a thief, and that it was for the public benefit you declared him
so to be?

Mr. Hampden: Well, my lord, I will say no if
I cannot qualify it in any way.

Mr. Woollett: I apprehend that the last part
of the document Mr. Hampden has put in will be
struck out, because it is a mere impertinence.

His Lordship intimated that it would be struck
out, and that a simple and ordinary plea of
justification would be taken.

Mr. Woollett then opened the case, which, he
said, had become almost notorious throughout
the country. In 1870 the prosecutor was foolish enough to accept a challenge
from the prisoner to
prove the rotundity of the earth, the prisoner holding the belief that
it was flat. [Laughter.] Each
of them put £500 in the hands of a stakeholder, Mr. Walsh, editor
of the Field. It was considered
that the prosecutor proved his case, and the £1,000 was handed
to him by Mr. Walsh. From that
time to this his life had been hardly bearable in consequence of the
repeated libels and
persecutions of the prisoner, and these proceedings were taken in the
hope of putting a stop to it.

Mr. Wallace simply deposed to the receipt of
the following post cards and letters, to their
being in the handwriting of the prisoner, and to their statements being
entirely unfounded:

1--Post card, dated Feb. 27, 1874.

"Sir,--If you are not conscious that your conduct has been that
of a swindler throughout,
why don't you have the view along the six miles of the Bedford
level photographed?--J. H."

2--Post card, 24th July, 1874.

"Sir,--I have felt it my duty to suggest
to the publishers of the "Encyclopædia" that
the
admission of articles from convicted thieves and swindlers cannot possibly
do them or their work
any credit, and offered to furnish them with proofs.--J. H."

3--Letter, 25th July 1874.

"Sir,--I have received your letter, and in reply I beg to state
that so far from knowing any
charges to be false, I do now swear, and will swear as long as I have
breath, that your conduct
towards me has been that of a cheat, a swindler, an impostor, and a thief,
and you shall put me
into every court in the United Kingdom before you compel me to be so
wronged and swindled as
I have been by you, and I dare and defy you to show these libels to be
false.--J. H."

4--Post card, 27th August, 1874.

"Sir,--In a conversation in a railway carriage, Aug. 27, a gentleman,
speaking of A. R. W.,
said 'Yes, indeed, that man must be a self-convicted thief who
is content to wait eight months for
a legal trial of his villainy when eight hours would suffice if he knew
he was innocent.'--J. H."

5--Letter addressed to the editor of the English Mechanic, September
10, 1874, and enclosed by
the editor to the prosecutor.

"Sir,--What a disgraceful fact it is that one of your principal
professors--one of the high
priests of English science--should have been for four years and
a half posted to every town in
the kingdom as a convicted cheat, swindler, impostor, and thief, for
such your friend, Mr. Alfred
Russell Wallace has been, and the poor wretch does not seem to have had
one friend besides his
hired attorney to take his part.--John Hampden."

Mr. Woollett said there were many other libels of the same sort, but
perhaps no more need be
specified.

Mr. Hampden (to the prosecutor): When your counsel just now related that
the discussion
between ourselves was as to the shape of the earth, was that true or
not?--Mr. Wallace: I believe
it was. [Laughter.]

Had the agreement anything at all to do with the shape of the earth?--I
believe it had a great
deal to do with the shape of the earth. [Laughter.]

It had nothing whatever to do with it; I never wagered a shilling on
the shape of the earth;
you got, I presume, £500 from the hands of Mr. J. H. Walsh?--I
did.

Who drew up our agreement?--I believe
I drew the first draught of it.

I had nothing to do with it, had I?--You
corrected that draught.

Did you propose the editor of a sporting newspaper
called the Field first as assignee or
stakeholder, secondly as your referee, and thirdly as umpire?

His Lordship: But all that was in writing, wasn't
it?

Mr. Hampden: Yes, sir.

His Lordship: You cannot ask him on a written
document without producing it.

Mr. Hampden: I am under the disadvantage of a
civil action now going on--[laughter]--and
all my papers are in the hands of my solicitor. [Laughter.]

To Mr. Wallace: What were Mr. Walsh's qualifications
that entitled him to such important
trusts?--He was the editor of a sporting paper.

Was he a scientific man?--Certainly not,
I should say.

Did you not know from his total ignorance of
science and engineering that he would be a
mere tool and cat's-paw in your hands?--Certainly not.

His Lordship: But you accepted him yourself,
you see, Mr. Hampden. [Laughter.]

Mr. Wallace said he submitted three names to
Mr. Hampden--viz. the
editors of the Field, of
Land and Water, and of the English Mechanic. Two were non-scientific
and one semi-scientific.
Mr. Hampden said either would do. [Laughter.]

Mr. Hampden: Without wishing to occupy the time
of the court with all the technicalities of
the case--

His Lordship: There are no technicalities about
it. It is only the fact whether this gentleman
is a swindler and a thief. [Laughter.]

Mr. Hampden (to Mr. Wallace): Will you venture
to swear as a gentleman, upon your oath,
that the curvature which you undertook to show of 24 feet in ten miles
does really and truly and
actually exist on the Old Bedford canal at the present moment?--I
did not undertake to show
that; it is not in the agreement. [Laughter.]

Mr. Hampden wished to put in a printed copy of
the agreement of a rough draught, and Mr.
Wallace was willing that he should do so, but his Lordship declined to
receive any but the
original document.

Mr. Hampden: Then I am entirely in Mr. Wallace's
power. [Laughter.] Is it not as much for
Mr. Wallace to produce that agreement as for me.

His Lordship: Certainly not. He does enough to
prove the libels. The onus of proving that
they are true lies upon you. [Laughter.]

Mr. Hampden: Well I am sure, my lord, my hands
are tied.

His Lordship: I cannot help it. I wish they had
been tied when you wrote these letters.
[Laughter.]

Mr. Hampden: I might almost as well sit down.

His Lordship: That you must take your own course
upon. [Laughter.]

Mr. Hampden: I am afraid, my lord, it is a foregone
conclusion.

His Lordship: It is not at all a foregone conclusion.
You must prove your case according to
law. I cannot wrench the law for you.

Replying to further questions from Mr. Hampden,
the prosecutor admitted that he met the
editor of the Field at that gentleman's request at the Field office,
on the 1st of April, but nothing
passed between them beyond ordinary conversation. When the editor parted
with the money he
[Mr. Wallace] gave him an indemnity against any legal proceedings Mr.
Hampden might take.

His Lordship: But the editor decided first in
your favour?--He decided
first in my favour,
and published his decision. Then there was some objection on the part
of Mr. Hampden, and I
gave him the indemnity.

Cross-examination by Mr. Hampden continued: I
know Mr. Walsh had received unconditional authority from you to pay the
money because I signed it too. [Laughter.]

Mr. Hampden: I never gave it to Mr. Walsh. Did
you not know that he had received two or
three written protests from me not to part with the money?--I did.

Does that not justify my statement now that I
never appointed Mr. Walsh?

His Lordship: That is a totally different thing.
You may have appointed him and when he
decided against you protested against his decision and sought to revoke
his authority, which you
couldn't do. [Laughter.] Did the defendant sign the document in
question?

Mr. Wallace: He did, my lord.

Mr. Hampden: Mr. Wallace knew nothing about civil
engineering.

His Lordship: That might be the very reason you chose him. [Laughter.]
Subsequently his
lordship remarked that he had this case before him previously, in another
form, and the question
between these two gentlemen was whether the earth was round or flat.

Mr. Hampden: Your lordship is under a total misapprehension. [Laughter.]--Mr.
Wallace
undertook to show that there was no such thing as a flat surface in nature,
and I offered £500 to
anyone who would show a curve. He undertook to show a curve on five miles
of water. He failed
to do it, but got the money and has stuck to it from that day to this.
[Laughter.]

His Lordship: That does not prevent you from bringing an action against
the stakeholder if
you consider he gave up the money wrongfully.

Mr. Hampden: Your lordship knows you tried the question yourself. Don't
you remember
that in the court at Westminster you gave me a verdict subject to a special
agreement?

His Lordship (Laughing): Subject to a special case, which special case,
as I understand, you
have never gone on with.

Mr. Hampden: Oh, it is going on.

His Lordship: I should have thought it had gone off by this time. [Laughter.]

Mr. Hampden: Your lordship must perfectly remember it, you know it isn't
an every day
case.

His Lordship: No. Heaven forfend that cases of this sort should be every
day cases.
[Laughter.]

Some further discussion occurring as to the original dispute between
the two parties, his
Lordship repeated that he had all along understood it was about the shape
of the earth, and he had
no doubt Mr. Wallace understood that too.

Mr. Hampden (to Mr. Wallace): Why have none of your scientific friends
ventured publicly
to justify your conduct or your possession of the money?--They have
all done so personally;
they did not take the trouble to do so publicly.

Don't you think it would have been worth while to defend your character?--I
don't think my
character needed that against your libels.

Mr. Hampden: I should have thought it would have given your friends very
little trouble and
you a great deal of satisfaction and put a check instantly to my complaints;
but when I saw you
had no friends--

His Lordship: Then you hit him the hardest, oh? [Laughter.]

Mr. Wallace: Proctor, the astronomer, wrote letters on the subject, and
you abused him
almost as much as you abused me. [Laughter.]

Mr. Hampden: Mr. Proctor is an astronomer, and astronomy has nothing
to do with the
question. Mr. Hampden proceeded to say that Mr. Wallace ought to taken
other steps than he had
to show his claim to the money, and that when he (Mr. Hampden) was altogether
dissatisfied and
discontented with what had been done he might have gone over the question
again on his (Mr.
Hampden's) paying the expenses. If his lordship, he added, insists
upon having original
documents now I must go to prison. I hope my words have not spoken louder
to Mr. Wallace than
his own conscience. I should have thought the possession of a thousand
pounds a very strong
solution for a great many hard words. [Laughter.]

His Lordship: How do you propose to make out your justification?

The prisoner, producing a pile of manuscript, then said: It is fortunate
for me that my case
does not require any of that special pleading which often serves to make
the worse appear the
better cause. Council for the prosecution has hardly said anything to
show that Mr. Wallace has
not deserved some little of the language I have addressed to him. Of
course I don't wish to justify
those expressions: I was thoroughly ashamed of them when I read them
the other day. He added
that he could only account for using them by saying Mr. Wallace had provoked
him, and, having
depended upon the charity of his friends and relations for the last two
or three years, he had been
driven into such extremities that he had taken up his pen and dashed
off reckless assertions of
which he was now ashamed.

The Judge: Then why, if you are ashamed
of it, do you attempt to justify it.

The Prisoner: I do not justify the words, my lord.

The Judge: What do you mean to justify then? You cannot call a man a
swindler and a thief
and then say you did not mean anything by it. His lordship added: No
man has any right to call
another person a swindler and a thief unless it is true--and even
then he had better not do it. [A
laugh.]

The Prisoner: It is not only the act of taking possession of the money
that I complain of.
What has offended me much more has been Mr. Wallace's dogged determination
not to write or
speak to me.

The Judge: If you call a man a swindler and a thief it is not very likely
he will consent to
become your correspondent.

The Prisoner said Mr. Wallace might easily,
by the expenditure of a five pound note, have
prevented all further dispute by simply having the thing gone over again.

The Judge: He has got the decision in his favour.

The Prisoner: But the decision is disputed.

His Lordship, after further latitude had been
allowed the prisoner, said: I must really ask you
whether you are prepared to justify the statement made in your several
libels that Mr. Wallace is
a swindler and a thief?

The Prisoner: I am, my lord, perfectly prepared
to prove that Mr. Wallace has taken
possession of £500 by false pretences, only my papers are in London.

The Judge: But you must put in that which the
law allows to be put in.

The Prisoner: But I am not prepared in that way.

The Judge: Then that is your
fault. A man who libels another, when he says he can justify
that libel, must be prepared to do it. It is not enough to say your papers
are in London; they
should have been here.

The Prisoner: If it will clear Mr. Wallace's
character by sending me to gaol, by all means
send me. I don't withdraw my charges. I only say I am tongue-tied
and hand-tied.

The Judge: You are not at all either tongue-tied
or hand-tied, for you have the legitimate and
regular means of defence; but it is not because you choose to libel another
that you are to have
opportunities that the law does not allow.

The Prisoner: But my ignorance of the law ought
to be a little plea in extenuation.

The Judge: Any man may say he is ignorant of
the law.

The Prisoner: Well, certainly a great many may
say so.

The Judge: So they may, with perfect truth. [A
laugh.]

The prisoner then said he placed himself in his
lordship's hands,
seeing that all he could say
was useless. He hoped, considering that there was a civil action pending,
the judge would
liberate him to come up for judgment when called upon.

His Lordship, in summing up to the jury, said
the prisoner had pleaded justification, which
the statute decided was an aggravation of the first act if the plea was
not sustained. This was not
an ordinary case of libel, in which expressions had been used in a moment
of anger, but it was a
systematic, cross, libellous persecution, by the sending of open post
cards which it was intended
the people at the post-office should read.

The Prisoner: Oh, no, my lord, the people at
the post-office would not have time to read all
these post cards.

His Lordship: But if they saw your signature
on one they would read it directly. They would
be sure there was something spicey in it. [Laughter.] His lordship then
reviewed the facts, as
brought out, and said the prisoner would be quite right in taking legal
action to recover the
possession of his £500, if he considered Mr. Walsh had misused
the authority which had been
reposed in him--and they only had the prisoner's word for
it that he had so misused that
confidence. The case, the prisoner said, had been decided in his favour,
subject to a special case
to be stated for a higher court. The prisoner said that case was still
coming on, but he (the learned
judge) should have thought it had long since gone off, so long a time
had elapsed since it was
heard of. There was no questioning the propriety of Mr. Hampden to take
proceedings to recover
his stakes, but it was unreasonable for him to expect Mr. Wallace to
hand back the money--since
it had been given to him by the referee appointed by them in common--and
have the thing tried
over again.

The Prisoner: I never suggested that.

The Judge: Will you allow me, sir. You have had
your opportunity, and now you must be
silent. His lordship added that there had been nothing adduced to show
that Mr. Wallace was in
any sense of the term either a swindler or a thief, and there was nothing
whatever against his
character; and there was no alternative but for the jury to find a verdict
of guilty.

The jury, after a moment's consultation,
returned a verdict of guilty.

Mr. Woollett said Mr. Wallace had been subject
to great persecution at the hands of the
prisoner, who had twice pleaded guilty to uttering libels against him,
and had also been once
committed to prison for two months for a like offence.

The Judge: Mr. Hampden, this must be put a stop
to. The sentence upon you is, that you be
imprisoned for 12 months, and that at the end of that period you find
sureties--enter into your
own recognisances in £1,000, and find two sureties in £200
each--for your good behaviour for
two years. I will put a stop to this libelling.

All pages at this site Copyright 1998, 2000-2016
by Charles
H. Smith. All rights reserved. Materials from this site, whole
or in part, may not be reposted or otherwise reproduced for publication
without the written consent of Charles H. Smith. All portrait images
of Wallace displayed at this site are in the public domain and may
be freely reproduced provided the source is properly acknowledged.